corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 19057

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Schwartz LM, Woloshin S.
Changing disease definitions: implications for disease prevalence. Analysis of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994.
Eff Clin Pract 1999; 2:(2):76-85.
http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/journals_publications/ecp/marapr99/changing.htm


Abstract:

CONTEXT: In the hope of extending treatment benefits to patients with early disease, various professional societies have recommended changing several common disease definitions by lowering the threshold value for diagnosis. COUNT: Number of Americans labeled “diseased” under new definitions for diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and being overweight. CALCULATION: [symbol: see text]

DATA SOURCE: Adult participants (age > 17 years) in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1988-1994).

RESULTS: Adopting the new definitions would dramatically inflate disease prevalence. Changing the threshold for diabetes from a fasting glucose level of > or = 140 mg/dL to > or = 126 mg/dL would result in 1.7 million new cases. Redefining hypertension as systolic blood pressure > or = 140 mm Hg instead of > or = 160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure > or = 90 mm Hg instead of > or = 100 mm Hg would create 13 million new hypertensive patients. For hypercholesterolemia (a cholesterol level of > or = 200 mg/dL instead of > or = 240 mg/dL) and being overweight (body mass index > or = 25 kg/m2 instead of > or = 27 kg/m2), the number of new cases would be 42 million and 29 million, respectively. The new definitions ultimately label 75% of the adult U.S. population as diseased.

CONCLUSIONS: If these modest changes in disease definition were adopted, great numbers of people would be considered diseased. The extent to which new “patients” would ultimately benefit from early detection and treatment of these conditions is unknown. Whether they would experience important physical or psychological harm is an open question.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963